Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 120
01/27/2016 01:30 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation: Alaska Criminal Justice Commission Reinvestment Report and Recommendations | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
JOINT MEETING
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
January 27, 2016
1:33 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
HOUSE JUDICIARY
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, Chair
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Charisse Millett
Representative Matt Claman
Representative Max Gruenberg
SENATE JUDICIARY
Senator Lesil McGuire, Chair
Senator John Coghill, Vice Chair
Senator Mia Costello
Senator Peter Micciche
Senator Bill Wielechowski
MEMBERS ABSENT
HOUSE JUDICIARY
Representative Wes Keller, Vice Chair
Representative Neal Foster
Representative Kurt Olson (Alternate)
SENATE JUDICIARY
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION: ALASKA CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMISSION REINVESTMENT
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
SUSANNE DIPIETRO, Executive Director
Alaska Judicial Council
Alaska Court System
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the Alaska Justice Commission
Reinvestment Report and Recommendations.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:33:32 PM
CHAIR GABRIELLE LEDOUX called the joint meeting of the House and
Senate Judiciary Standing Committees to order at 1:33 p.m.
Representatives Lynn and LeDoux and Senators Coghill, Costello,
and McGuire were present at the call to order. Representatives
Millett, Claman and Gruenberg and Senators Micciche and
Wielechowski arrived as the meeting was in progress.
^PRESENTATION: Alaska Criminal Justice Commission Reinvestment
Report and Recommendations
PRESENTATION: Alaska Criminal Justice Commission Reinvestment
Report and Recommendations
1:34:36 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the only order of business would be
the Presentation: Alaska Criminal Justice Commission
Reinvestment Report and Recommendations.
1:35:15 PM
SUSANNE DIPIETRO, Executive Director, Alaska Judicial Council,
Alaska Court System, advised that the December 2015 Judicial
Reinvestment Report includes recommendations to make Alaskan
families and communities safer, how to hold criminal offenders
accountable, how to curb the sky rocketing costs of Alaska's
corrections system, and how the State of Alaska can receive a
better return on its public safety dollar investment. She
turned to slides 2-3 of the PowerPoint presentation and advised
that the commission received information regarding the cost of
not undertaking any criminal justice, trends in Alaska's prison
population, and recommendations for Alaska's lawmakers.
1:36:46 PM
MS. DIPIETRO pointed out that prison growth in Alaska has grown
27 percent during the last 10 years, the cost of corrections is
approximately $300 million per year. In the event the State of
Alaska does nothing and these trends continue, she pointed out,
the state will house 6,500 prisoners within the next few years
and that increased cost would be approximately $169 million.
Although the population of Alaska is increasing, prison growth
is increasing three times faster than Alaska's population and
data shows that Alaskans are not receiving a good public safety
return on the state's investment because almost two out of three
released offenders return to prison within three years.
CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether the prison population is rising due
to more offenses subject to prison or because law enforcement
has been doing a better job of catching people.
MS. DIPIETRO responded that the prison population is rising for
three reasons which she offered as before, during, and after
incarceration. She explained that the "before" reason is that
people being held pre-trial has increased 81 percent. She noted
that 28 percent are unable to make bail and are taking up prison
beds, and are now staying longer than previously.
1:39:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether her research had focused
on the constitutional problem resulting in the poor going to
jail without a trial.
MS. DIPIETRO responded that the Judicial Council's research is
contained within the report and that the current pre-trial
system is related to money. She stated that generally during a
bail hearing the defendant receives a money bail; therefore,
Alaska's bail system is related to how much money a person can
pay. She pointed out that the thrust of the commission's
recommendations on pre-trial is that instead of relating release
to money, that the release is related to risk.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether any research has been
performed on the constitutionality of the money bail system.
MS. DIPIETRO answered no.
SENATOR COGHILL pointed out to Representative Gruenberg that
within the Alaska State Constitution bail is required and is a
matter of where and how it is applied. Under the constitution,
Alaska is bail specific and he said in going through the process
he will show how that has been applied in Alaska and how Alaska
can do better, he explained.
1:42:15 PM
MS. DIPIETRO said the comprehensive and full scale study of the
system from top to bottom was the most thorough study that
possibly has been performed in several decades, and the
commissioners found it quite eye opening. She referred to
"during" with regard to the convicted and sentenced population,
and said that 31 percent of felony offenders stay longer than 10
years ago which is driving the increased sentenced population.
She referred to "after" and said these individuals served their
sentence and have been released on probation or parole with
supervision and with rules they must follow or be returned to
prison for violating those rules. It turns out, she noted, that
22 percent of the returned people in prison violated rules of
probation or parole that were technical violations. She
explained that technical violations are not new crimes, but such
violations as a dirty drug test, failing to attend an
appointment, or failing to maintain a job.
CHAIR LEDOUX interjected that most drugs are controlled
substances and pointed out that a dirty drug test would be a new
crime.
MS. DIPIETRO replied that it could be charged as a new crime,
but typically it is treated as a violation of probation or
parole. She offered that three-fourths of the individuals
entering Alaska's prisons are convicted of non-violent offenses
which was an "eye-opener" for the commissioners.
1:45:16 PM
MS. DIPIETRO turned to slides 4-5 and reminded the committee
that the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission was created by the
legislature within Senate Bill 54, July 2014. The commission's
mandate was to evaluate and make recommendations involving
criminal laws and practices while keeping in mind the important
goals of public safety, offender rehabilitation, victim
restitution, and reducing costs. The 13 members of the
commission include: Senator John Coghill, Representative Wes
Keller from the legislative branch, three judges from the
judicial branch, Department of Corrections and the Department of
Public Safety commissioners, and the Attorney General from the
administrative branch. Also, Lieutenant Kris Sell of the Juneau
Police Department, Public Defender Agency's Quinlan Steiner,
Chair Greg Razo from Cook Inlet Region, Inc., Brenda Stanfill
from the Interior Alaska Center for Non-Violent Living
representing victims, and Jeff Jesse from the Alaska Mental
Health Trust. She related that Lieutenant Kris Sell commented
that she was surprised during the process to agree with Public
Defender Steiner on a number of issues in this report.
MS. DIPIETRO advised that the commission let the data, studies
and documented experiences in other states drive its
deliberations and recommendations, thereby coming to a consensus
on 21 comprehensive recommendations. She said that should the
package of 21 recommendations be adopted and become law, they
are projected to save approximately $424 million over the next
10 years, and some of that savings is "averted savings, and some
of that is actual savings from reductions in the prison
population."
1:48:35 PM
SENATOR COGHILL added that the Judicial Council was chosen to
house the work of the commission. He stressed that the Judicial
Council was a significant part of the process because it helped
manage, maintain, arrange meetings, and unpack meetings, reach
into agencies, listen to commissioners to determine how to deal
with the issues, and the Judicial Council also had the Pew
Charitable Trusts working as a helper.
MS. DIPIETRO pointed out that one of the Judicial Council's
constitutional duties is to conduct studies to improve the
administration of justice, and as the executive director
expressed her appreciation in being involved in the effort and
said she hopes to continue to be of assistance. She advised
that the Public Safety Performance Project, Pew Charitable
Trusts provided technical assistance, and that the research and
technical assistance was a partnership between the Pew
Charitable Trusts' experts and Alaskan expertise and agencies.
MS. DIPIETRO discussed the commission's process and advised that
it was involved in a great deal of outreach, traveled to Nome
and Kotzebue and had round tables there, visited the Anvil
Mountain Correctional Center and spoke with prisoners and
correctional officers. The commission held over 50 advertised
public meetings where members of the public would attend and
contribute. The commission also sponsored two victim round
tables due to its concern about the perspectives and priorities
of victims in Alaska. She noted that the round tables were in
Fairbanks and Bethel and that a report was generated from those
round tables which is on the Judicial Council website under the
Criminal Justice Commission tab.
1:52:00 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked whether the definition of "non-
violent offender" changed over the years, and asked her to
define it in regard to her statement that 75 percent of the
prison population are non-violent offenders.
MS. DIPIETRO offered that she was not aware whether the
definition had changed ... a non-violent offender is someone not
convicted of a person crime. For example, she explained, for
purposes of the commission, a non-violent offender is someone
convicted of a drug or alcohol offense in this category, as
opposed to an offender that committed a violent act against
another person or put someone physically at risk.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked whether her definition of non-violent
offender is similar to the definitions used in most other
states.
MS. DIPIETRO advised that for purposes of this analysis, yes.
She remarked that the legislative leadership asked the
commission to determine recommendations that would reduce the
prison population by averting all future prison growth, to
reduce the current prison population by 15 percent, and by 25
percent. She described those charges as the goal posts set and
said the commissioners took it very seriously and thought very
hard in their recommendations about how can to get to the 15,
20, and 25 percent reductions while preserving public safety.
She stressed that this was not an exercise in just saving money
or emptying prisons but rather an exercise in making
recommendations that could reduce the prison population while
preserving public safety by reducing recidivism.
MS. DIPIETRO referred to the lower half of slide 5 and described
it as a quick overview of the commission's process, as follows:
the system assessment was very extensive; the Pew Charitable
Trusts brought research from other states; the commission
engaged in site visits and round tables and received input from
experts in Alaska; and because these areas are so complex the
commission broke itself into three work groups regarding pre-
trial, sentenced, and the post-conviction population.
MS. DIPIETRO referred to slide 7 and said she would provide a
"broad overview" of the principles and recommendations in the
report, as follows: whether non-violent pre-trial defendants can
safely be released and supervised while awaiting trial; and can
the state divert low-level non-violent offenders away from
prison and into other types of intervention. For example,
community based interventions, community based supervision, non-
prison alternatives, confinement in community residential
centers, or electronic monitoring, she said. She then explained
that this would be with the principle that prison beds are
expensive and that the state wants to preserve them as much as
possible for the more violent offenders with longer and stricter
supervision.
1:57:26 PM
MS. DIPIETRO said that another principle included reviewing
sentencing laws and noted that sentences for felons had
increased quite a bit in ten years. The question was whether
sentences on the books for felons could be brought more in line
with sentences from other states, or in line with Alaska's laws
in previous years. With regard to the community supervision
side when the offenders are released, she said, the commission
would like them monitored and assisted to become productive
members of society rather than just let out to reoffend. A
principle there was to impose swift and certain sanctions for
people released who violate their conditions of probation or
parole. She said the commission made recommendations about how
to strengthen supervision in a community and strengthen
mechanisms probation officers use so they could respond more
appropriately to the [released] people in the community.
1:59:25 PM
MS. DIPIETRO referred to slide 8 and explained that an important
and critical portion of the package is if the legislature were
to adopt this package there would be savings; however, some of
these recommendations will not have the outcomes expected unless
there is a modest amount of reinvestment in resources. For
example, she said, if it makes sense to release non-violent low-
level risk defendants while awaiting trial to free-up part of
the 28 percent of the beds they are taking up, there have to be
more tools in a community for assessing their risk and
supervising them when they are required pre-trial supervision.
A recommendation is to reinvest in community supervision for
pre-trial services because their release doesn't work well
unless there is a way to assess their risk. The commission
emphasized that the reinvestment piece is a modest portion of
the savings yet important and critical to the whole package
holding together to receive the expected outcomes.
2:01:09 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether she was saying that only non-violent
defendants be considered for pre-trial release or defendants not
convicted but charged with a violent crime.
MS. DIPIETRO replied that the commission received information
from a few other pioneering states working in "Pre-Trial Risk
Assessment" and offered that the risk assessments would include
factors such as, the type of offense they are charged with and
their criminal history. She said that the point is that other
states are having good results and the commission recommends
trying pre-trial risk assessments in Alaska and developing a
tool completely tailored for Alaska.
SENATOR COGHILL added that currently bail is the question and
bail is probably arbitrary when considered across Alaska. He
opined that this would offer a tool that indicated risk of not
showing [in court] and risk to public safety. People are
assumed innocent before found guilty but there are risks which
is why some people remain in jail. In that bail has been
available to people with very high risk, this would put a
different approach on how Alaska views the pre-trial population,
he said. Pew Charitable Trusts brought in, from all over
America, places where this approach has proven practices and
data driven with good outcomes, he said.
2:04:09 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE related that when discussing non-violent or
violent criminals whether there is a spreadsheet as to how it is
divide it up because a repeat offender with many DUIs is a
violent criminal due the potential [of harm], or someone with
drug offenses to the point of endangering their family due to
abuse or neglect. He said "it's not that simple, is it?"
MS. DIPIETRO answered that his comments make a lot of sense and
explained that the Pew Charitable Trusts had to categorize
offenses as violent, non-violent, alcohol, theft, property
offenses, or [another] person offenses when analyzing DOC's
records which may be different from risk. She offered that a
person with a couple of DUIs would, as she understands the way
the Pew Charitable Trusts categorized offenses for purposes of
analyzes, would have been in the category of alcohol offenses.
She explained that when the defendant came up for pre-trial
release the defendant may be assessed as high risk and that when
she was discussing the categories of people in prison, those
were categories that Pew Charitable Trusts performed to help the
commission understand what crimes people had committed while
they were in prison that did not necessarily include how risky
those people would be.
SENATOR MICCICHE said that when Ms. DiPietro discussed the
proportion of non-violent criminals in prison it leaves the
impression that most of us would support them not serving in a
brick and mortar prison. He pointed out that that is not the
case as many falling into the non-violent category are very high
risk to people outside of the institution. He said "It is kind
of the reason for my confusion."
MS. DIPIETRO agreed that it was a good point which lead her to
substance abuse. She said that many of people cycling in and
out of the correctional facilities have substance abuse problems
with drug possession or dealing and alcohol problems. One of
the main points of the commission is that treatment for
substance abuse must not be to confine people in prison because
it is expensive, the alternative has to be to give them access
to treatment so that their underlying problems can be addressed.
She said that Lieutenant Sell discussed this issue and reported
from her own experience that she is arresting many of the same
people over and over again. Typically misdemeanor defendants do
not stay in prison long enough to receive drug and alcohol
treatment, are released and not supported in the community, and
go back to their same old habits, so Lieutenant Sell has to
arrest them again, she expressed. Obviously, she pointed out,
with a 64 percent recidivism rate in Alaska the cycle is not
being broken. Research has shown that people receiving
treatment for their underlying problems desist from criminal
behavior. The principle is that there has to be treatment
available for those with substance abuse and stop the revolving
door, she remarked.
2:09:08 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI expressed that this is a very important
discussion and the state must provide treatment if it wants a
system to reduce sentences. His frustration, he said, is
hearing about someone being arrested 30-50 times for a variety
of offenses, often substance abuse related, and finally killing
someone. It is critical, if the legislature is going to make a
serious effort about this that it has to focus attention on
substance abuse treatment. He opined there will be people, for
whatever reason, the state will be unable to help and those
people need to be locked up to protect society.
MS. DIPIETRO responded that certainly the law enforcement
members of the commission would agree because they are
frustrated also. She offered that there are ways to intervene,
such as therapeutic courts that could be used more often, and
substance abuse treatment in the community. She agreed that
there must be treatment in the facilities but particularly in
the community because many, if offered the opportunity, would
want to become more productive members of society. Studies show
that keeping defendants longer in prison does not decrease
recidivism, and what caused them to desist from criminal
behavior was to address their underlying problem, which is
usually substance abuse or mental health or both, she stressed.
2:11:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to Ms. DiPietro's comment that
many people are in prison due to a petition to revoke (PTR) at
approximately 60 percent.
MS. DIPIETRO clarified that it was approximately 25 percent of
the people in prison on any given day.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that what is being dealt there
is failure to keep appointments.
MS. DIPIETRO replied that it is one kind of technical violation.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether the commission reviewed
other ways of helping people keep their appointments.
MS. DIPIETRO answered that the commission did review research
showing that people are more likely to keep their
appointments/court date if they receive a telephone, text, or
email reminder. A recommendation within the report is to
institute a reminder system regarding court date appearances,
she said.
MS. DIPIETRO agreed with Representative Gruenberg that the
system would need to be automated.
2:13:10 PM
MS. DIPIETRO emphasized that the very important reinvestment
issue or resources in the community issue to the commission was
to provide services and resources to prevent violence, support
victims, and advance victim priorities. It was apparent at the
round tables that many victims wish to see prevention services
so there would be fewer victims. She reiterated that it is a
very important portion of the commission's recommendations and
identifying people who could be contained and rehabilitated
outside of an institution and the saving from that could be
reinvested.
2:14:43 PM
MS. DIPIETRO referred to the lower half of slide 8 that depicted
the commission's predictions for the package. She noted that if
this package is adopted, the green line indicates how many
prison beds would be saved over the next few years. She said it
is a 21 percent reduction, and approximately $424 million in
savings.
MS. DIPIETRO replied to Chair LeDoux's question that it
represents a 10 year period - 2024. She continued that support
services includes strengthening reentry, which is a simple
concept. She said that national research by the Judicial
Council showed that when people are released from prison almost
every person who is going to reoffend has gone back to prison
within the first three months to a year. It was an eye opener,
she said, that when first released they misstep and the idea is
to offer reentry support and services as they need a place to
sleep, get a job, find housing, reunify with estranged family.
Therefore, they need services at the beginning because that is
the time they are most vulnerable to violating.
CHAIR LEDOUX commented that if a released prisoner manages to
stay out of prison for a year after they've been released they
generally make it.
MS. DIPIETRO responded "that is the truth" from their studies
and the research is supported nationally as well.
2:18:08 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE said a year is clearly a significant milestone
and asked whether there is an average period of time where
typical recidivism occurs under a year.
MS. DIPIETRO opined that she did not know whether she could call
it an average, but almost all of the recidivism that happens
within the first three months is approximately 90 percent.
SENATOR MICCICHE advised that he had reviewed the DHSS budget
and demographics of some of the people in need and although this
commission focused on DOC, there are costs for DPS, DOL, and
most likely DHSS costs for the remaining family members. He
said it would be interesting to pull those departments into the
analysis because recidivism is expensive.
MS. DIPIETRO said it would be hard to do but very worthwhile.
2:20:05 PM
MS. DIPIETRO referred to the issue of limiting the use of prison
for low-level misdemeanor offenders and reiterated that research
has shown that putting these offenders in prison can make them
worse. She described the research as an eye-opener for a number
of commissioners and offered the analogy of "putting the minnows
with the sharks."
SENATOR COGHILL related that as a member of the commission he
heard that if there are other ways of accountability, such as
ankle monitoring or constant reporting, an individual may not
lose their job, housing, or the ability to have transportation.
He described these as "huge" factors in moving along by taking
them out of society by putting them in jail at a point where
they lose their ability to actually repair themselves. He
pointed out that housing and a job are important issues during
reentry. Senator Coghill advised that the commission reviewed a
range of accountability issues, which will probably be in a
bill, and noted that sometimes the people themselves would
prefer just sitting in jail, but there is an accountability that
keeps them moving forward. He pointed out that just using seat
time to change someone's behavior has not worked as well as
other ways of accountability.
2:22:44 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked whether the commission factored in
people intentionally being arrested to receive medical care, a
warm place to sleep, or food.
MS. DIPIETRO responded that the commission did receive anecdotal
information, but no statistical studies or data.
Commissioner Stanfill mentioned that in Fairbanks there are
people who cannot receive assistance or support and may actually
go into prison. She stressed that the low-level offenders would
not be released to their own devices, but would be held
accountable within the community, which is less expensive.
Rather than being in prison, there is the potential to
rehabilitate via therapeutic courts that have been shown to be
effective and could be used more, electronic monitoring, and
other kinds of checking in with supervisors while the person
looks for work, reintegrates with an estranged family,
potentially pay child support, and/or support their family.
When incarcerated, these important issues of bringing people
back into the community and living a productive life can be
difficult. It is easier and less expensive with community
resources and support and, she pointed out, is part of the
reinvestment piece.
2:24:50 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE related that he was allowed to attend an
intense group therapy session for three hours. The low-level
substance abuse offenders discussed things they learned inside
such as, better skills at avoiding detection while using,
getting more contacts and obtaining substances, and more
effective illegal ways to earn money for their habit when
released. He remarked that the "saddest" point is that
substances were often available inside anyway which didn't
decrease the debt for their family by continuing their habits.
He described the people in the session as very nice people that
had taken a wrong turn and didn't know how to get back.
MS. DIPIETRO described Senator Micciche's information on the
ground as interesting and said that is exactly what the
commission heard.
2:26:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN offered an anecdotal incident with a
client who seemed to get arrested for shoplifting in November
and December and would receive longer and longer misdemeanor
sentences usually being released sometime in the spring. He
said that using DOC dollars is an expensive way to provide a
warm bed.
2:27:56 PM
MS. DIPIETRO opined that there is a difficult problem in
determining how to motivate an individual's behavior. She
explained that the commission is recommending the ways others
have found to work most of the time. Interestingly, those tend
to be less expensive ways in the communities and she stressed
"provided that the services are there" because these people
cannot be released without the types of support they need.
MS. DIPIETRO referred to the lower half of slide 9 and opined
that if Alaska is able to pass a significant reform package,
free additional technical assistance would be available to help
implement some of the recommendations. She reiterated that a
pre-trial risk assessment tool is used in other states, and that
any such tool would have to be tailored for Alaska first and
could not be put in place immediately. She advised that the
Judicial Council staff has been in touch with one of the "main
foundations" creating risk assessments in other states, and they
tentatively indicated a willingness to work with Alaska. She
said it's a lot of work but the resources could be there for
Alaska to accomplish it.
MS. DIPIETRO referred to "things we already know" with regard to
community supervision and if trying to control someone's
behavior it is helpful to have a stick and doubly helpful to
have a carrot with the goal of encouraging people to have good
behavior and a consequence to not behaving. She said the carrot
piece of the tool could strengthen DOC when supervising people,
and the question is whether a person on probation could be
incentivized to complete all of the tasks they must complete by
receiving compliance credits. In other words, she explained, if
a person does the things ordered, such as paying restitution,
seeking treatment, and paying fines, could they be then be
rewarded by getting off of probation more quickly. She
indicated that this would have a domino effect in that complying
offenders coming off probation would mean one less person on the
probation officer's case load, and the officer could then focus
more closely on the people that are not so compliant. The
commission recommended that there could be compliance credits
for people out on supervision who need to get busy for their own
rehabilitation, and also for the restoration of society such as
paying fines or restitution. She said that currently there is a
method of penalizing them and no the carrot.
2:32:35 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked how often a probationer is required to see
their probation officer.
MS. DIPIETRO said she does not know the answer, but believes it
varies depending upon the circumstances.
CHAIR LEDOUX noted that possibly it is counter-productive when
the act of seeing their probation officers interferes with them
trying to hold a job. She said she is not suggesting there
shouldn't be probation officers and asked about the flexibility
available when scheduling appointments if someone does have a
job.
MS. DIPIETRO remarked the people have reported being "over
programmed" in that they have so many appointments to go to that
it is difficult to do what they need to do.
2:33:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN advised that some offenders, at a higher
risk for reoffending, have an intensive probation or parole
release program that can mean daily meetings with their
probation officer which can include drugs tests every day in the
early stages and as it gets better they ease back on how
frequently they have to be drug tested. Others released may
only have once a week or once every other week and as they
improve it goes down to once a month. He said a bill last year
addressed the issue of people working in different communities
than their probation officer worked and that their check in
requirements limited their ability to have jobs. He related
that there are definitely times those requirement get in the way
of their work opportunities and there has to be flexibility for
that, and at the same time their work can't be an excuse that
they can't see their probation officer. To keep offenders from
reoffending in that one year there must be intensive
supervision, especially early on, but the reward system would
suggest that if the person is doing better they won't have to
see the probation officer as often, he surmised.
2:35:10 PM
SENATOR COGHILL referred to Recommendations 12-18 of the Alaska
Criminal Justice Commission Justice Reinvestment Report and said
the discussion is regarding tools that give better risks and
needs assessments in programs, how to supervise the higher risk
in a different manner, and how to receive good time credit on
probation. He pointed out that part of the justice reinvestment
here is reinvesting in some of those things, thereby decreasing
the probation and parole load. The risk assessment tool will
show a better way of managing people within that system and
rather than pumping up the amount of probation officers, take
care of the people at the highest risk first and then move
along, he opined. He noted that the committee will see ways to
encourage good behavior and hold people accountable. He noted
that are a "couple of tweaks in there" including capping some of
the ways to Petition to Revoke Probation (PTRP) people and hold
them accountable a little differently.
2:36:42 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE opined that it is likely a person will offend
more as a young person and that many of them have the potential
to turn their lives around and succeed. He asked whether DOC
has a system of applying a probability of success with
incarcerated individuals that respond to treatment where some of
the credits may end up with a productive individual who can be
proud of what they are doing in their lives, support their
family, and leave it all behind. He further asked whether DOC
invests in that kind of ranking to provide more support for
someone with a higher probability of success.
MS. DIPIETRO replied that she does not know the answer, but DOC
does perform risk assessments and that approximately 40 percent
of the people assessed are deemed low-risk. She reiterated the
concept of how likely is that person to reoffend which is a
little different than Senator Micciche asked, but that would be
the closest thing she is aware of. The state and DOC is more
invested now in trying to systematically assess people for the
likelihood of reoffending. She reiterated Senator Coghill and
said that a tool the commission recommended is on the stick side
of things for people who do violate ... the commission received
information that people going in on a supervision violation were
spending on an average 106 days back incarcerated for each
violation. She described that as "kind of a long time"
especially in light of evidence which shows that they don't
really need to spend that long. They do need to be held
accountable, she stressed, but if someone comes out on
supervision and gets off on the wrong foot, jerk them back very
quickly, get them in there, get their attention, and then get
them back out to try again, and if they mess up they come back
for a longer time. The individuals sort themselves out and for
the ones who learned after the first consequence and ones who
needed a few more consequences to get the idea. She said the
commission recommends supporting this principle.
2:41:03 PM
MS. DIPIETRO pointed out that the commissioners commented on the
intensity of coming together with so much information and
struggling over these very complicated and uncertain issues that
many states have struggled with. There are no simple answers,
she pointed out, but these are the best answers the commission
could come up with, they've been vetted, discussed with many
stakeholders, discussed thoroughly and with great emotion and
care within the commission meetings. She emphasized that there
are 21 consensus recommendations that all of the commissioners
with different perspectives agreed upon. She said they will
wait to have the recommendations in the bill.
2:42:37 PM
SENATOR COGHILL advised that as a commission member, there were
50-some meetings broken down into sub-groups with busy people
who are judges and law enforcement people, including Greg Razo
who came from the Alaska Native Justice Center spent "hours and
hours and hours" away from work as did everyone else with a real
willingness to roll up their sleeves and tackle it. Similar to
the legislative process, discussing one policy affects many
other policies, thereby making staying focused a major task and
the Judicial Council did it very well, he acknowledged. The
Judicial Council is part of a criminal justice working group
that discusses public court management, police interventions,
and do not recommend policy and in that regard, he explained,
when the commission came in many of the same discussions had
already happened but this is a way to filter them up to policy
calls. He noted that these recommendations are consensus items
and they must yet be determined to work at a technical level,
and that the legislature will be asking how it works with pre-
trial, sentencing for persons for violence, supervision
intervention, oversight and accountability which have two very
different functions, and reinvestment. He explained that
Recommendations 1-4 are pre-trial, Recommendation 5-11 are
prison for violent versus non-violent, Recommendations 12-18
deal with supervision interventions, and Recommendations 19-21
are related to a different approach to oversight and
accountability, and reinvestment then follows on. Depending
upon the location, the cost of a prison bed is approximately
$140 per night, and if the state can save that bed and reinvest
$50 or $80 and have better safety outcomes then that is a good
focus, he expressed. As the report shows, the commission looked
at it as a body of thought and he related that many of the
recommendations in coming to as a consensus necessarily had to
be at a higher level than what the legislature will work at and
hammer out the issues word-by-word.
2:45:55 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX offered that she, as the House Judiciary Standing
Committee Chairman, is looking forward to working on this bill
as it may be one of the most important things the committee does
and perhaps the legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered that as the committee moves
forward it should focus on what works and have feedback with an
opportunity to change things. He said that provisions in some
of these bills would require reporting and sunset clauses. He
asked what legislators can do to help make the system work.
2:47:19 PM
MS. DIPIETRO responded that one of the most important
recommendations of the report is that there be an accountability
and oversight body established. Should the legislature make
these significant changes, the state is entitled to receive the
better outcomes promised; therefore, monitoring is necessary to
determine whether they are working or not, she remarked. She
expressed that it would be wrong and sad to enact these
significant changes and not have a way of deciding whether the
prison bed reductions, and low-level offenders not spending as
long in prison caused the revolving door to go faster, or did
the changes cause it to stop. She advised that the commission
recommends establishing performance measures as to the ongoing
process, what should happen, which way the numbers should move,
collecting information and reporting back to the legislature and
governor on how the changes are working. In the event there are
unintended consequences, the oversight body would communicate to
the legislature so that tweaks or adjustments could be made in
the law, she described this as very important. The
commissioners are very committed to the success of these
recommendations, she noted.
2:49:33 PM
SENATOR MCGUIRE offered her appreciation and commented that "we"
also stand committed to working on these issues. She suggested
that in moving forward, to think of the 21 recommendations as
discrete categories, the goals, and what concrete decisions can
be made today. She referenced the idea about a pilot project
and screening those in a higher risk in pre-trial status, as a
concrete recommendation with some proven success behind it in
other states. She also suggested clearly allowing law makers to
see links, dollar amounts, and the decisions legislators need to
make. This is a very ethereal concept and everyone on the
committee would agree that the state spends too much money, and
for the dollars spent the results are not good from both a cost
and humanistic point of view. She remarked that the legislators
are aware changes need to be made, but when getting into the
details over the last 15 years people can end up in political
debates over things such as, being pro-victim, pro-crime, pro-
defendant, and too soft or hard on crime. She opined that if it
could be narrowed down and slow rolled over a period of three
years with concrete recommendations and data behind them, and
then "what is your ask specifically," she opined that [the
recommendations] will get there. For example, she pointed to
the 24/7 program, which a decade ago the legislature believed
was too risky because something could happen and yet the result
has been 99 percent success with a data driven process that can
be reported. She suggested building on "those kinds of things"
so that there is more success at the front end before you start
taking the bigger philosophical risks.
2:52:26 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the Joint
House and Senate Judiciary Standing Committee was adjourned at
2:52 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| ACJC Justice Reinvestment Report 12.2015.pdf |
HJUD 1/27/2016 1:30:00 PM |
Criminal Justice Commission - Justice Reinvestment Report & Recommendations |
| ACJC Justice Reinvestment Report Presentation 01.27.2016.pdf |
HJUD 1/27/2016 1:30:00 PM |
Criminal Justice Commission - Justice Reinvestment Report & Recommendations |